Create an assumption memory entry with classification, basis, and tags for persistent knowledge storage.
Create an assumption memory. classify: fact/assumption/hypothesis/guarantee.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | Yes | ||
| basis | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| details | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| statement | Yes | ||
| claim_category | Yes | ||
| verification_needed | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No information is provided about side effects, persistence, or any mutating behavior. Since no annotations are available, the description carries full responsibility but fails to disclose what happens when an assumption memory is created (e.g., whether it is stored, linked, or validated).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, but it is not effectively concise because it omits essential information. It spends characters on an unclear 'classify' fragment rather than providing useful structure or context. The brevity is not paired with clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks crucial context that an agent needs to correctly invoke the tool. It does not explain the domain, the expected input format, the relationship to other memory types, or any output expectations. Given the tool's placement among many similar creation tools, this is a critical gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
None of the eight parameters are described. The schema provides only field names and types, but the description does not explain the meaning of fields like 'statement', 'claim_category', 'basis', or how 'verification_needed' should be used. The 'classify' hint is the only semantic clue and is incomplete and confusing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Create an assumption memory') and identifies the resource type, but it does not clarify what qualifies as an 'assumption' or how this tool differs from sibling memory creation tools like hypothesis_create or observation_create. The lowercase 'classify' hint is ambiguous and does not provide meaningful purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any criteria for selecting this tool over similar creation tools, nor does it offer examples or context for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.